I'm off for the weekend - leaving town for a bit of R&R - which I'm told is good for the health. I'll be back on Monday with some info about microwaving your food - in the meantime...don't.
See you then!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Or Vice Versa
Agghhh! It’s becoming a theme here, don’t you think? Medical/nutritional advice that contradicts itself is everywhere – sometimes you can even find contradictions right in the same article.
I found this article over at Health News about after-meal bloating. Not the most entertaining topic, I know, but one I find concerning. I was interested in the list of foods that are supposed to help curb that overfull, gassy feeling after meals.
The article recommends these: Bananas, mangoes, spinach, nuts, asparagus, melons, and tomatoes because they are high in potassium and an amino acid called asparagine. Okay. Sounds like a plan to me. I was all set to stock up on green veggies and tropical fruit until I got to the second page of the article and found this quote:
You may want to try staying away from common foods that do not digest well within the system (cauliflower, broccoli, leafy greens, beans, corn, cabbage, and nuts)
Hello? So, do I eat nuts to get more potassium which will help curb bloating or do I avoid them because they don’t digest well and cause gas??? Isn’t spinach a leafy green? Help.
What could is a nutritional self-help article that tells you to one thing and then not to do the same thing? Do the authors of these articles think people won’t notice?
I’m beginning to wonder if good health is just a hit or miss sitch. Do this to feel better – unless it doesn’t work, then do the opposite.
Does anyone really know what’s good for us?
I found this article over at Health News about after-meal bloating. Not the most entertaining topic, I know, but one I find concerning. I was interested in the list of foods that are supposed to help curb that overfull, gassy feeling after meals.
The article recommends these: Bananas, mangoes, spinach, nuts, asparagus, melons, and tomatoes because they are high in potassium and an amino acid called asparagine. Okay. Sounds like a plan to me. I was all set to stock up on green veggies and tropical fruit until I got to the second page of the article and found this quote:
You may want to try staying away from common foods that do not digest well within the system (cauliflower, broccoli, leafy greens, beans, corn, cabbage, and nuts)
Hello? So, do I eat nuts to get more potassium which will help curb bloating or do I avoid them because they don’t digest well and cause gas??? Isn’t spinach a leafy green? Help.
What could is a nutritional self-help article that tells you to one thing and then not to do the same thing? Do the authors of these articles think people won’t notice?
I’m beginning to wonder if good health is just a hit or miss sitch. Do this to feel better – unless it doesn’t work, then do the opposite.
Does anyone really know what’s good for us?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Pandemic or Pandemonium?
I just read this article about the World Health Organization’s response to accusations that the swine flu pandemic of 2009 was a hoax designed to increase profits for pharmaceutical companies.
Of course the WHO denies any wrongdoing. They maintain that the number of reported cases of swine flu worldwide qualifies as a pandemic, regardless of how many deaths occurred. I supposed based on dictionary definition, it was a pandemic. Whether or not the widespread panic that accompanied it was necessary or not is anyone’s guess.
I know people who became seriously ill from swine flu, so I’m not minimizing its severity, but I have to say I’m not surprised by the accusations made in the article. To me it seems odd that a disease which had people all over the world wearing surgical masks in public just a few months ago suddenly seems to be getting so much less attention. Is the pandemic over or at least in remission for now?
I wonder if this is because millions of people have received vaccinations, thus halting the spread of the virus. Or is it because the severity of the epidemic was exaggerated in order to increase demand for the vaccine?
People die from influenza every year. There’s no debating it’s a deadly illness and those with already compromised immune systems are especially at risk, but I wonder if it really benefits society to inflate the risk of a disease in order to insure more people take precautions against spreading it. Did the WHO and the media really do the world a service by terming the swine flu spread to be a pandemic and increasing not only awareness of the disease but fear of it, or did they ultimately only do the vaccine manufacturers a service? The efficacy of the swine flu vaccine is still under debate, and the regular flu season isn’t quite over yet, so are we right to still be afraid or are we right to be skeptical?
Of course the WHO denies any wrongdoing. They maintain that the number of reported cases of swine flu worldwide qualifies as a pandemic, regardless of how many deaths occurred. I supposed based on dictionary definition, it was a pandemic. Whether or not the widespread panic that accompanied it was necessary or not is anyone’s guess.
I know people who became seriously ill from swine flu, so I’m not minimizing its severity, but I have to say I’m not surprised by the accusations made in the article. To me it seems odd that a disease which had people all over the world wearing surgical masks in public just a few months ago suddenly seems to be getting so much less attention. Is the pandemic over or at least in remission for now?
I wonder if this is because millions of people have received vaccinations, thus halting the spread of the virus. Or is it because the severity of the epidemic was exaggerated in order to increase demand for the vaccine?
People die from influenza every year. There’s no debating it’s a deadly illness and those with already compromised immune systems are especially at risk, but I wonder if it really benefits society to inflate the risk of a disease in order to insure more people take precautions against spreading it. Did the WHO and the media really do the world a service by terming the swine flu spread to be a pandemic and increasing not only awareness of the disease but fear of it, or did they ultimately only do the vaccine manufacturers a service? The efficacy of the swine flu vaccine is still under debate, and the regular flu season isn’t quite over yet, so are we right to still be afraid or are we right to be skeptical?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Take that back!
I heard about this on the radio Tuesday morning – it’s time to celebrate National Take Back Your Time Week – and for five glorious days* the overworked and underslept can or rather should take back some of the time we give to our overscheduled lives and relax.
Much easier said than done. This article offers some examples of how to Take Back Your Time wisely. Unfortunately none of the suggestions include permanently dropping out of the rat race and moving to a deserted island [my first choice, btw.]
I’m all for the concept of slowing down our lives. I think we all work too much, worry too much and spend too much time on the Internet. The whole idea of life less rushed appeals to me, though I think it will be a while before it really catches on because society as a whole is about moving fast all the time and keeping up. We’re constantly bombarded with information designed to make us want to work more, earn more, have more, do more – which sounds great in theory except that most of it is impossible to achieve. We can’t be all things all the time and that creates more stress which makes relaxing impossible.
I find it interesting that we have to set aside a day or a week to ‘officially’ relax because the majority of people won’t do it unless they’re told to. If it’s a movement, an organization, a new regiment, then it’s okay, but if it’s just a way of life there’s not really time for it.
Do you have to schedule your relaxation? Would you if you could? I mean – do you have time to relax at all? Sometimes I feel like I don’t. If I relax I fall behind and I hate both the feeling of falling behind and of feeling guilty for wishing I didn’t hate the feeling of falling behind. I do think we all need to relax a little more, but I’m not sure we need to have an organization to tell us we need to relax.
For more about the Take Back Your Time movement, you can visit the website at http://www.timeday.org/ where Take Back Your Time Day falls on October 24th – oddly enough. There you will find a detailed list of things to do on Take Back Your Time Day/Week – which all seem a bit counterintuitive to me. If I’m going to take back my time, I’m not going to spend my time hawking for the Take Back Your Time Initiative or planning a Take Back Your Time event.
*Note: National Take Back Your Time Week apparently does not include the weekend, when you are supposed to go back to being too busy to breathe.
Much easier said than done. This article offers some examples of how to Take Back Your Time wisely. Unfortunately none of the suggestions include permanently dropping out of the rat race and moving to a deserted island [my first choice, btw.]
I’m all for the concept of slowing down our lives. I think we all work too much, worry too much and spend too much time on the Internet. The whole idea of life less rushed appeals to me, though I think it will be a while before it really catches on because society as a whole is about moving fast all the time and keeping up. We’re constantly bombarded with information designed to make us want to work more, earn more, have more, do more – which sounds great in theory except that most of it is impossible to achieve. We can’t be all things all the time and that creates more stress which makes relaxing impossible.
I find it interesting that we have to set aside a day or a week to ‘officially’ relax because the majority of people won’t do it unless they’re told to. If it’s a movement, an organization, a new regiment, then it’s okay, but if it’s just a way of life there’s not really time for it.
Do you have to schedule your relaxation? Would you if you could? I mean – do you have time to relax at all? Sometimes I feel like I don’t. If I relax I fall behind and I hate both the feeling of falling behind and of feeling guilty for wishing I didn’t hate the feeling of falling behind. I do think we all need to relax a little more, but I’m not sure we need to have an organization to tell us we need to relax.
For more about the Take Back Your Time movement, you can visit the website at http://www.timeday.org/ where Take Back Your Time Day falls on October 24th – oddly enough. There you will find a detailed list of things to do on Take Back Your Time Day/Week – which all seem a bit counterintuitive to me. If I’m going to take back my time, I’m not going to spend my time hawking for the Take Back Your Time Initiative or planning a Take Back Your Time event.
*Note: National Take Back Your Time Week apparently does not include the weekend, when you are supposed to go back to being too busy to breathe.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
There's an economist born every minute
I get a kick out of reading the predictions of economists. Every since the recession hit [or rather since they actually began admitting it was a recession], every day there have been articles like this one telling us the economy is in recovery.
The only people who actually notice this recovery seem to be the economists. They tend to base their predictions on miniscule drops in new unemployment claims. My interpretation: If last month 500,000 people lost their jobs and applied for unemployment and this month 400,000 lost their jobs and applied for unemployment, the economy must be improving. One hundred thousand less people applied for unemployment and that’s a good thing, right? It seems to me they ignore the obvious – that there were 500,000 people out of work and now there are 900,000. We’re not supposed to look at it that way I guess.
It’s all ‘the glass is half full.’
Well, I try hard not to be a pessimist, and I guess if I can find amusement in what appears to be the cock-eyed optimism of economists, then I’m not really a full-blown pessimist after all. But seriously – who pays these people to tell us things are looking up based on trends that tend to swing back forth like a pendulum? Today prices are up, housing is up, jobs are up…based on data collected a month ago. Tomorrow prices are down, housing is down, jobs are down, based on data collected one day later.
Who do we believe? What do we believe? My take is to ignore the economists. Thing are better if they’re better. They’re worse if they’re worse.
Maybe the economy would recover if we stopped paying the economists to tell us about it.
The only people who actually notice this recovery seem to be the economists. They tend to base their predictions on miniscule drops in new unemployment claims. My interpretation: If last month 500,000 people lost their jobs and applied for unemployment and this month 400,000 lost their jobs and applied for unemployment, the economy must be improving. One hundred thousand less people applied for unemployment and that’s a good thing, right? It seems to me they ignore the obvious – that there were 500,000 people out of work and now there are 900,000. We’re not supposed to look at it that way I guess.
It’s all ‘the glass is half full.’
Well, I try hard not to be a pessimist, and I guess if I can find amusement in what appears to be the cock-eyed optimism of economists, then I’m not really a full-blown pessimist after all. But seriously – who pays these people to tell us things are looking up based on trends that tend to swing back forth like a pendulum? Today prices are up, housing is up, jobs are up…based on data collected a month ago. Tomorrow prices are down, housing is down, jobs are down, based on data collected one day later.
Who do we believe? What do we believe? My take is to ignore the economists. Thing are better if they’re better. They’re worse if they’re worse.
Maybe the economy would recover if we stopped paying the economists to tell us about it.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Added value?
While reading the Saturday paper this week, I made myself a little collection of coupons for more of the fortified food products that seem to be becoming the norm at the supermarket.
Now you can get Omega-3s and Vitamin E in your milk
Smart Balance
Probiotics in your sugar substitute
Nevella
And if you don’t like drinking healthy pomegranate juice for the antioxidants it contains, you can now get it in pill form*
POMx
I’m not necessarily knocking any of these products. I just find it fascinating that so few packaged foods are unadulterated these days. The idea seems to be that by adding supplements to everything, or by turning naturally healthy foods into supplement pills value is added. You get more for your money if you’re not only sweetening your drink but boosting your immune system at the same time. It’s not enough just to drink a glass of milk, it needs to contain a dose of vitamins as well.
In our society where no one has time to eat right or exercise enough, it seems to make sense that food manufacturers are trying to help us out by giving us extra nutrition in everything we buy, but I tend to think this only helps us avoid the need to slow down and pay more attention to what we eat and how we eat it. Are we really healthier if we get the daily recommended dose of every vitamin and nutrient from just one glass of a super-fortified drink, whether it be juice, milk, water or even soda [7-Up even comes fortified with anti-oxidants these days]? Or do we just think we’re healthier because we’ve gotten some extra nutrients and saved time in the process?
* Interesting about the pomegranate pill, it also comes in concentrated liquid form...so if you don't like the juice you can take a pill and if you don't like the pill you can have a spoonful of...more juice.
Now you can get Omega-3s and Vitamin E in your milk
Smart Balance
Probiotics in your sugar substitute
Nevella
And if you don’t like drinking healthy pomegranate juice for the antioxidants it contains, you can now get it in pill form*
POMx
I’m not necessarily knocking any of these products. I just find it fascinating that so few packaged foods are unadulterated these days. The idea seems to be that by adding supplements to everything, or by turning naturally healthy foods into supplement pills value is added. You get more for your money if you’re not only sweetening your drink but boosting your immune system at the same time. It’s not enough just to drink a glass of milk, it needs to contain a dose of vitamins as well.
In our society where no one has time to eat right or exercise enough, it seems to make sense that food manufacturers are trying to help us out by giving us extra nutrition in everything we buy, but I tend to think this only helps us avoid the need to slow down and pay more attention to what we eat and how we eat it. Are we really healthier if we get the daily recommended dose of every vitamin and nutrient from just one glass of a super-fortified drink, whether it be juice, milk, water or even soda [7-Up even comes fortified with anti-oxidants these days]? Or do we just think we’re healthier because we’ve gotten some extra nutrients and saved time in the process?
* Interesting about the pomegranate pill, it also comes in concentrated liquid form...so if you don't like the juice you can take a pill and if you don't like the pill you can have a spoonful of...more juice.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Dos and Don'ts of Food Cures
I’m currently reading Food: Your Miracle Medicine by Jean Carper. It’s a thick paperback packed with interesting tidbits about how foods have effect in both healing and preventing disease.
It’s interesting stuff but not as easy to understand as one might think. The main message of course seems to be that eating healthy food will help make you healthy. No problem there. Eating certain foods in larger quantities can ease symptoms of certain diseases and even stop them completely. Avoiding certain foods can also help prevent and cure certain common disorders.
The problem I’m finding with the book, though, lies in the need to cross reference each food…if you take more of something to prevent or cure a certain condition, you may be causing yourself another problem.
Tea is a perfect example – it seems to have lots of healing properties and has effect in numerous medical conditions. The take home message in a lot of health related literature I’ve read lately is drink more tea. But tea is also listed as a culprit in the formation of kidney stones [been there, done that, don’t want to go back.] So, do I continue to drink large amounts of tea because of the anti-oxidants and other healing properties or do I give it up in order to prevent a recurrence of my kidney stones?
Sweet potatoes are another suspect on the kidney stone list – and they’re likewise a superfood reported to have numerous health benefits. Another dilemma. By changing my diet to include more sweet potatoes and more tea for their healthful effects, I seem to be putting myself at greater risk for a recurrence of kidney stones.
{Insert big sigh here}. I won’t even mention all the bad things chocolate is supposed to cause because I haven’t started reading this book yet. Of course, I would never give up chocolate, even if it caused sudden, irreversible, flatulent death. Maybe my love of chocolate means I’ll never be fully healthy – or maybe it means I’ll never die. I don’t know, and I don’t care…but I do want to know how I can cure with food and not cause some other ailment in the process.
Any suggestions?
It’s interesting stuff but not as easy to understand as one might think. The main message of course seems to be that eating healthy food will help make you healthy. No problem there. Eating certain foods in larger quantities can ease symptoms of certain diseases and even stop them completely. Avoiding certain foods can also help prevent and cure certain common disorders.
The problem I’m finding with the book, though, lies in the need to cross reference each food…if you take more of something to prevent or cure a certain condition, you may be causing yourself another problem.
Tea is a perfect example – it seems to have lots of healing properties and has effect in numerous medical conditions. The take home message in a lot of health related literature I’ve read lately is drink more tea. But tea is also listed as a culprit in the formation of kidney stones [been there, done that, don’t want to go back.] So, do I continue to drink large amounts of tea because of the anti-oxidants and other healing properties or do I give it up in order to prevent a recurrence of my kidney stones?
Sweet potatoes are another suspect on the kidney stone list – and they’re likewise a superfood reported to have numerous health benefits. Another dilemma. By changing my diet to include more sweet potatoes and more tea for their healthful effects, I seem to be putting myself at greater risk for a recurrence of kidney stones.
{Insert big sigh here}. I won’t even mention all the bad things chocolate is supposed to cause because I haven’t started reading this book yet. Of course, I would never give up chocolate, even if it caused sudden, irreversible, flatulent death. Maybe my love of chocolate means I’ll never be fully healthy – or maybe it means I’ll never die. I don’t know, and I don’t care…but I do want to know how I can cure with food and not cause some other ailment in the process.
Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
